Do T20s actually matter?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Quality of the peer group is vastly different vs. non T20 IMO.

With holistic admissions and current preferences for athletes, first gen and pell grant eligible, this is not true, Lots if kids at T50 or even T75 who have stats for T20 but didn’t get in due to the aforementioned preferences, were hurt by average ecs, or college’s desire for geographical diversity.

The issue is do these kids ever get the jobs at Goldman Sachs, Blackstone, McKinsey, Bain in the numbers - on a per capita basis - compared to the top 25 schools?
The answer is they don’t. At least not yet. Maybe that will change in the next decade.

I would be extremely disappointed if my kids ended up at a Goldman or a Blackstone, etc., so I'd say opinions differ about the "quality" of a peer group that is gunning in that direction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Quality of the peer group is vastly different vs. non T20 IMO.

With holistic admissions and current preferences for athletes, first gen and pell grant eligible, this is not true, Lots if kids at T50 or even T75 who have stats for T20 but didn’t get in due to the aforementioned preferences, were hurt by average ecs, or college’s desire for geographical diversity.

The issue is do these kids ever get the jobs at Goldman Sachs, Blackstone, McKinsey, Bain in the numbers - on a per capita basis - compared to the top 25 schools?
The answer is they don’t. At least not yet. Maybe that will change in the next decade.

I would be extremely disappointed if my kids ended up at a Goldman or a Blackstone, etc., so I'd say opinions differ about the "quality" of a peer group that is gunning in that direction.

Too many people give this crappy stock answer. I assume your kid would at least want to have the option to turn one of these jobs down vs never even remotely considered.

For the life of me, I don’t know what for profit entity would pass your test…maybe Patagonia?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Quality of the peer group is vastly different vs. non T20 IMO.

With holistic admissions and current preferences for athletes, first gen and pell grant eligible, this is not true, Lots if kids at T50 or even T75 who have stats for T20 but didn’t get in due to the aforementioned preferences, were hurt by average ecs, or college’s desire for geographical diversity.

The issue is do these kids ever get the jobs at Goldman Sachs, Blackstone, McKinsey, Bain in the numbers - on a per capita basis - compared to the top 25 schools?
The answer is they don’t. At least not yet. Maybe that will change in the next decade.

I would be extremely disappointed if my kids ended up at a Goldman or a Blackstone, etc., so I'd say opinions differ about the "quality" of a peer group that is gunning in that direction.

Too many people give this crappy stock answer. I assume your kid would at least want to have the option to turn one of these jobs down vs never even remotely considered.

For the life of me, I don’t know what for profit entity would pass your test…maybe Patagonia?

💯
I think ppl want to know that an expensive T20 education may eventually result in an annual salary potential greater then the total cost of the education. Not that the kid needs to actually take that type of job but at least have the option.
That is success.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Quality of the peer group is vastly different vs. non T20 IMO.

With holistic admissions and current preferences for athletes, first gen and pell grant eligible, this is not true, Lots if kids at T50 or even T75 who have stats for T20 but didn’t get in due to the aforementioned preferences, were hurt by average ecs, or college’s desire for geographical diversity.

The issue is do these kids ever get the jobs at Goldman Sachs, Blackstone, McKinsey, Bain in the numbers - on a per capita basis - compared to the top 25 schools?
The answer is they don’t. At least not yet. Maybe that will change in the next decade.

I would be extremely disappointed if my kids ended up at a Goldman or a Blackstone, etc., so I'd say opinions differ about the "quality" of a peer group that is gunning in that direction.

It is not just Goldman, Jane St, et al, it is better law schools(T14 matters for many goals), top research med schools(T25 research based med schools feed into top residencies: heads of departments in academic medicine come from T20 med disproportionally), and on and on. There are kids who are top intellect with big dreams who want all the doors open to the top of their field: elite universities and selective LACs open more doors.
It CAN be done sometimes from the good flagships, but it is a much harder and rarer path.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Quality of the peer group is vastly different vs. non T20 IMO.

With holistic admissions and current preferences for athletes, first gen and pell grant eligible, this is not true, Lots if kids at T50 or even T75 who have stats for T20 but didn’t get in due to the aforementioned preferences, were hurt by average ecs, or college’s desire for geographical diversity.

The issue is do these kids ever get the jobs at Goldman Sachs, Blackstone, McKinsey, Bain in the numbers - on a per capita basis - compared to the top 25 schools?
The answer is they don’t. At least not yet. Maybe that will change in the next decade.

I would be extremely disappointed if my kids ended up at a Goldman or a Blackstone, etc., so I'd say opinions differ about the "quality" of a peer group that is gunning in that direction.

It is not just Goldman, Jane St, et al, it is better law schools(T14 matters for many goals), top research med schools(T25 research based med schools feed into top residencies: heads of departments in academic medicine come from T20 med disproportionally), and on and on. There are kids who are top intellect with big dreams who want all the doors open to the top of their field: elite universities and selective LACs open more doors.
It CAN be done sometimes from the good flagships, but it is a much harder and rarer path.

Exactly.
It’s just easier - all around and all careers - from a T20 etc.

I 💯 agree it doesn’t make it right - but that’s not the question or really the point. It’s the reality.

[Anonymous]

the launching point is sooo much higher from a T20

doesn’t mean that’s how it will end up - but it’s a better starting point 💯

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do elite schools actually matter? Besides prestige and connections, what are the pros?

I have heard from parents of MIT kids of them getting summer research internship and earning 50K over 3 months which pretty much covers the difference between in-state and out of state tuition (MIT does not give any merit based scholarship since it is pretty much the whole school; only need based scholarship). After graduation I have seen them earning twice more than my salary after 20 years of exp in IT. Lot of T20 school kids end up starting their own startups as well with their classmates. There is a reason why students and parents (like us) crave for top schools.

Kids starting companies are already connected and have money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cute, but most companies don’t have a single “hiring manager” with plenary power to hire candidates. The candidates get screened, often by a committee, then interviewed, usually by direct and indirect supervisors. Then some sort of feedback is elicited and at least a soft consensus built. So no the hiring manager doesn’t get thrown under the bus if someone doesn’t work out. They are more likely to get in trouble for screening out someone with a high GPA in a target major even from a non-elite college.

maybe this is how it works in ur snowflake world. In the real world AI screens first batch - and in the jobs kids want (IB, Consulting, and Tech), the final decision will be ur boss, or hiring manager - welcome to 2024

"the jobs kids want" -- which kids?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Quality of the peer group is vastly different vs. non T20 IMO.

This.
The networking. The connections. The opportunities.

I went to a T-20 in the 90s and my siblings did not. There’s a huge divergence in earnings and peer group (my college friends and their outcomes compared to theirs)….

Agree with this. I went to a top Ivy, sibling did not. We both did fine in our careers and lives, but we went on to very different paths. And the people we associate with now are very, very different.

More people have opposite anecdotes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Quality of the peer group is vastly different vs. non T20 IMO.

With holistic admissions and current preferences for athletes, first gen and pell grant eligible, this is not true, Lots if kids at T50 or even T75 who have stats for T20 but didn’t get in due to the aforementioned preferences, were hurt by average ecs, or college’s desire for geographical diversity.

The issue is do these kids ever get the jobs at Goldman Sachs, Blackstone, McKinsey, Bain in the numbers - on a per capita basis - compared to the top 25 schools?
The answer is they don’t. At least not yet. Maybe that will change in the next decade.

I would be extremely disappointed if my kids ended up at a Goldman or a Blackstone, etc., so I'd say opinions differ about the "quality" of a peer group that is gunning in that direction.

Agree 100%. I want my kids to have an impact on the world/others. And not an impact like the big corporations.

To each his own, I guess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Quality of the peer group is vastly different vs. non T20 IMO.

With holistic admissions and current preferences for athletes, first gen and pell grant eligible, this is not true, Lots if kids at T50 or even T75 who have stats for T20 but didn’t get in due to the aforementioned preferences, were hurt by average ecs, or college’s desire for geographical diversity.

The issue is do these kids ever get the jobs at Goldman Sachs, Blackstone, McKinsey, Bain in the numbers - on a per capita basis - compared to the top 25 schools?
The answer is they don’t. At least not yet. Maybe that will change in the next decade.

I would be extremely disappointed if my kids ended up at a Goldman or a Blackstone, etc., so I'd say opinions differ about the "quality" of a peer group that is gunning in that direction.

Agree 100%. I want my kids to have an impact on the world/others. And not an impact like the big corporations.

To each his own, I guess.

So, what job is acceptable for your kid? Sounds like the entire private sector doesn’t qualify.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Quality of the peer group is vastly different vs. non T20 IMO.

With holistic admissions and current preferences for athletes, first gen and pell grant eligible, this is not true, Lots if kids at T50 or even T75 who have stats for T20 but didn’t get in due to the aforementioned preferences, were hurt by average ecs, or college’s desire for geographical diversity.

The issue is do these kids ever get the jobs at Goldman Sachs, Blackstone, McKinsey, Bain in the numbers - on a per capita basis - compared to the top 25 schools?
The answer is they don’t. At least not yet. Maybe that will change in the next decade.

I would be extremely disappointed if my kids ended up at a Goldman or a Blackstone, etc., so I'd say opinions differ about the "quality" of a peer group that is gunning in that direction.

Agree 100%. I want my kids to have an impact on the world/others. And not an impact like the big corporations.

To each his own, I guess.

So, what job is acceptable for your kid? Sounds like the entire private sector doesn’t qualify.

+1. LOL. This.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do elite schools actually matter? Besides prestige and connections, what are the pros?

I have heard from parents of MIT kids of them getting summer research internship and earning 50K over 3 months which pretty much covers the difference between in-state and out of state tuition (MIT does not give any merit based scholarship since it is pretty much the whole school; only need based scholarship). After graduation I have seen them earning twice more than my salary after 20 years of exp in IT. Lot of T20 school kids end up starting their own startups as well with their classmates. There is a reason why students and parents (like us) crave for top schools.

Kids starting companies are already connected and have money.

DP here. Not the ones that I know! You sound very naive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do elite schools actually matter? Besides prestige and connections, what are the pros?

I have heard from parents of MIT kids of them getting summer research internship and earning 50K over 3 months which pretty much covers the difference between in-state and out of state tuition (MIT does not give any merit based scholarship since it is pretty much the whole school; only need based scholarship). After graduation I have seen them earning twice more than my salary after 20 years of exp in IT. Lot of T20 school kids end up starting their own startups as well with their classmates. There is a reason why students and parents (like us) crave for top schools.

Kids starting companies are already connected and have money.

DP here. Not the ones that I know! You sound very naive.

Agree. Multiple startups i am personally aware of were by non-connected kids who got the tools and peers from their top schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Quality of the peer group is vastly different vs. non T20 IMO.

With holistic admissions and current preferences for athletes, first gen and pell grant eligible, this is not true, Lots if kids at T50 or even T75 who have stats for T20 but didn’t get in due to the aforementioned preferences, were hurt by average ecs, or college’s desire for geographical diversity.

The issue is do these kids ever get the jobs at Goldman Sachs, Blackstone, McKinsey, Bain in the numbers - on a per capita basis - compared to the top 25 schools?
The answer is they don’t. At least not yet. Maybe that will change in the next decade.

I would be extremely disappointed if my kids ended up at a Goldman or a Blackstone, etc., so I'd say opinions differ about the "quality" of a peer group that is gunning in that direction.

Agree 100%. I want my kids to have an impact on the world/others. And not an impact like the big corporations.

To each his own, I guess.

So, what job is acceptable for your kid? Sounds like the entire private sector doesn’t qualify.

A nonprofit. Their work is very important!